INTEROCEAN SHIPPING CO. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) THE facts as revealed by adjudication order are that appellants are the ship brokers and carry on following activities: -

(3.) SHRI Amresh Jain, the learned Departmental Representative, defending the impugned order by reiterating the findings of the Commission in it, pleaded that the appellants, as ship brokers, act on behalf of the ship owners as well as charterers, that from the letter dated 21 -10 -2008 of the appellants it is clear that they also deal with the cargo, that the person who "deals with the goods or services" of the client is covered by the definition of 'commission agent', that from the fact that the appellant as ship broker monitor and track the cargo till it reaches the destination, it is clear that the appellant deal with the cargo, that the services of the appellants even in the cases where the appellants received payments for their services in foreign currency from ship owners or charterer located abroad cannot be called export of service and, hence, the same would be taxable, that the appellants have suppressed the relevant information and hence the longer limitation period has been correctly applied and penalty has been correctly imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and that there is no infirmity in the Commissioner's order except for extending cum duty benefit, which decision of the Commissioner is incorrect in view of Apex Court's judgment in case of Amrit Agro Industries v. CCE reported in : 2007 (210) E.L.T. 183 (S.C.) - He, therefore, pleaded for dismissal of the appeals filed by the appellants and allowing of the appeals filed by the Department.